- From: Gregory J. Woodhouse <gjw@wnetc.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
- To: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 23 May 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: > > Hi, > > Just had a thought that might shorten the draft somewhat, how about > issuing the definition of the ebnf as a separate RFC? This would remove a whole > section. > [...] This makes a lot of sense. The EBNF section is included in a number of places besides the HTTP drafts. I think we've definitely reched the point where a separate RFC is justified. I also agree with you that this sort ofr change is more appropriate for future versions so HTTP 1.1 isn't needlessly delayed. --- Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com home page: http://www.wnetc.com/ resource page: http://www.wnetc.com/resource/
Received on Thursday, 23 May 1996 12:39:02 UTC